REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SURSATI Appellant

V/S

State of U.P. and Ors. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DURGADAS PURKAYASTHA V. HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA NATH SINGH YADAV VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AKADASI PADHAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
TINSUKHIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
SNEH PRABHA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
U P JAL NIGAM LUCKNOW VS. KALRA PROPERTIES P LTD [REFERRED TO]
USHAKUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. TRIPURA BAR ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. TRIPURA BAR ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. HARISH KUMAR PUROHIT [REFERRED TO]
V CHANDRASEKARAN VS. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD VS. NEW PINK CITY NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD [REFERRED TO]
M. VENKATESH AND ORS. VS. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS. MANAV DHARAM TRUST AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA NATH SINGH YADAV VS. UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. TARSEM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Devendra Kumar, learned Counsel for National Highways Authority of India, Respondent No.6.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this petition for the following main reliefs:-

(3.) Facts of the case are that one Smt. Ram Dulari widow of late Pataru son of Sugriv executed a sale deed dated 21.1.2016 in favour of petitioner for an area of 0.430 hectare out of 0.05804 hectare of gata No. 535 situated in Mauja Pirthipur, Pargana Pachotar, District Ghazipur. On the basis of the said sale deed the petitioner's name was recorded as Bhumidhar in the revenue records on 11.3.2016. Later on, the petitioner acquired knowledge that the land of gata No. 535, purchased by her had already been acquired vide notification under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956. In the notification annexed as Annexure No.3 the name of the original land holder was mentioned in Column 34. The petitioner filed many applications for correction of her name in place of the name of transferor and for payment of compensation for the acquired land to the petitioner in view of the sale deed but the payment has yet not been made.

Click here to view full judgment.

SURSATI Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address